Incentive

It's all too common. We hear about it all the time. There's been a leak. I'm not referring to the kind involving (actual) plumbers, but the kind that means that information is given to someone not authorized to have it, by someone in the know. Usually the “someone in the know” has an ax to grind or is prompted to do so for political purposes – like a “trial balloon,” an incriminating document, or the wholesale release of stolen files. And it's leaked to the media. (“Whistleblowers” fall into the category of leakers but may have different motives, although at times it may be hard to differentiate them from those with a political end.) Indeed, sometimes leakers are simply looking for personal publicity.

In a sense, leakers are bribers. There's an incentive. They're providing something in order to gain some kind of benefit from what they're doing. And bribery is common. It's a serious problem not only in the political arena, but far beyond that as well.

A bribe is the payment of anything of value to a public official (dog-catcher, policeman, state or national legislator – or candidate for such a position, restaurant or construction inspector, Cabinet member, assistant or adviser to one of those, etc.) or to anyone else who has some form of authority or knowledge that can be valuable to the one offering it, and helpful to the one receiving it. (Among the other types are payment for “inside information,” payment to a judge for a favorable decision, etc.) There may or may not be an explicit consideration for that payment at the time or in the future – the bribe may just be a “good-will” offering with no specified quid pro quo. The category includes statements and votes as well as tangible gifts. And it includes donations to the bribed individual's favored charity.

More often the payment will go to the official, his employee, or to a relative. It's a reasonable assumption that the official was aware of the bribe, even if it was not made directly to him but intended to reach him. If it can be demonstrated that he had no knowledge of the bribe he should be exonerated and the guilty parties prosecuted. (The official, however, should be more careful about who is in his employ or family.) If the briber is doing so on behalf of his own employer, that leader – not only the organization if any, but the individual(s) involved – should also be sanctioned. Greatly. But that's not always the case.

Despite the seriousness of the act it's a crime that isn't adequately punished. Of course it brings shame on those involved (often more for being caught than having participated in the forbidden behavior). But in politics some consulting position is likely to replace anything lost. And sometimes there is job loss or a fine, but these, which are usually the sum total of the costs of doing “business,” should only be the starting point.

Let me suggest some added reparations which should be demanded of those involved.

In addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the bribed individual should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe (or, if it is information, its potential value if it would accomplish what is expected of it – whether or not achieved), and he should be barred from holding any public position in the future. (The “future” includes the election taking place at the time the bribe is disclosed.) Association with any public official, or organization dealing with the government thereafter should be publicized and punished. Travel to a state or national capital should also be publicized much as the movements of sex offenders are.

Moreover, in addition to any existing penalties for whatever crime he may have committed, the briber, including former public officials, should pay into the public treasury a sum equal to twice the value of the bribe, and he also should be barred from holding any public position in the future. The bribe should be publicized to his constituents and employers. If it his employer (or its agent) who designated the bribe, that employer should pay into the public treasury ten times the value of the bribe, from his own assets – not the company, and he should be barred from holding a position of authority in that or any similar organization or organization that has dealings with the government. Association with any public official thereafter should be publicized along with travel to a state or national capital.

An individual who discloses a bribe (in which he doesn't participate) should be given the value of the bribe by both the briber and the person bribed. This would be in addition to whatever is paid to the public treasury. No individual should lose his job because of his disclosure of any illegal activity.

A public official who turns in a bribe-offerer should be paid by the briber the full value of the bribe for his (the official's) public use while the briber is subject to the penalties outlined above. (If the public official subsequently supports the cause of the briber it would be viewed as representing acceptance of the bribe and he should be punished accordingly.)

One final note: The bribe is not always obvious. It may result in the addition of a provision in some legislation – a provision that aids an individual, organization, or industry, or it may come in a form that “aids” constituents who will vote in the next election. Such bribes may be harder to identify or prove, but disclosure, and the light of unremitting publicity, may be helpful in discouraging their use. The media are good at flogging dead horses. (Fortunately not mine.)

Well, here I am on my high, but unflogged, horse. I'm imperious. And I'm certainly a loudmouth. It's easy to be virtuous. No one has ever given me a bribe. I have nothing to offer. There's no incentive to offer me an incentive.

January 15, 2017

Not My Fault

                                                                                                              

The punch line is: “None of us was driving Officer. We were all in the back seat.”

You had to be there. It was part of a joke by Peter Lind Hayes about a drunk old lady whose car was involved in an accident, and it was very funny at the time.ⁱ Nowadays it's not so funny. We'd blame someone else now, rather than talking about ourselves.

In fact, nowadays we always seem to be focused on someone else. Everything is hisⁱⁱ responsibility. If something goes wrong he either caused it or didn't prevent it. Nothing should be blamed on me, and if something goes wrong, it's always because of what someone else did or didn't do. Or, perhaps, what he should do. Certainly he's responsible for my well-being. If I have needs, he has to fill them.

According to the Wall Street Journal,ⁱⁱⁱ the Bloomberg administration had a program that “paid poor families for basic behaviors such as going to the doctor, attending school and doing well on tests. … adults are rewarded for working 30 hours a week … and parents still get paid for dentist visits and annual medical checkups.” Ideally such a program would make it adventageous for the poor to do the things that used to be considered intelligent and that would benefit those who engaged in them. Now, it seems, society considers it appropriate to bribe people to do what might be good for them. In all likelihood, if we don't do that they'll spite us by not taking care of themselves. Perhaps it's cheaper to bribe them than to pay the costs of remediation later on, but it provides an incentive to act irresponsibly. In any event, “the experiment was largely a flop.” It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that in my day (stop yawning) the individual was considered responsible for his own welfare. Intelligent behavior was assumed.

I first noticed the problem in mid-career in medicine when I learned that it was the doctor's fault if a patient did not follow instructions or didn't show up for an appointment. It seemed strange^iv that the doctor would be guilty and held accountable if the patient didn't take his medicine, or if he didn't care enough to return when scheduled. Actually it shouldn't have surprised me. After all, it takes a village to raise^v a child. And it takes a village to support him and his family. And the village better do it.

The Bible tells us that we are responsible for each other. It urges us to give charity. In a way, that's how many of us view the situation, and the responsibility for dealing with it. All problems can be attributed to society, and society should correct them. That's the origin of social programs around the world. In the US we have Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, food stamps, homeless shelters, Head Start, and a host of other programs designed to support those who can't, or won't, make it on their own. The idea is basically one of universal insurance. We all pay the government and it supplies the services needed by those who are unable to provide for themselves.^vi And since we get govermental funding through a graduated income tax, that means that the rich pay for the poor. That's fair, isn't it?

Well, it certainly sounds fair.^vii Unfortunately for that to really happen we have to place the line between “rich” and “poor” fairly low.^viii Even much higher taxes on the “one percent,” or even the ten or twenty percent, will be inadequate to pay for all the programs we've taken on. Usually they are “feel-good” programs pushed by those who never inform the voters that they will pay for them. All they do is to inspire guilt in those whom they have chosen to be the insurers. It's good politics. They get votes from the guilt-ridden for their compassion, and from the poor for their support. From the perspective of both, the government has deep pockets and is responsible for the care of all our citizens.^ix Most forget, however, that we are the government, and we are the insurers of the welfare of our fellows.^x Ultimately, no one is responsible for his own well being. We are all responsible for that of others.

And none of us is responsible for anything that goes wrong. It, too, is someone else's fault. Another hoary joke is that if you fall, it isn't your doctor who tells you if something is wrong, it's your lawyer. And he^xi tells you whom you should sue. That way both you and he will get a payoff for whatever happened. Even if no one else caused your problem, there is likely to be someone who can be blamed. It's surely not your fault if something goes wrong. Someone has to pay. We're an extremely litigious society. The media are filled with advertising by lawyers who will try to get you money for anything that can be construed as blamable on someone else. Sadly, there is a refusal of the acceptance of any responsibility by individuals.

So there will be many who, whatever the demonstrated outcome of such efforts, will continue to encourage bribing people to act responsibly. Perhaps they'll favor subsidies for obeying the law. And general no-fault insurance for whatever people see as the inequities of life. After all, the government will pick up the tab.

Next episode: “The Trouble With Democracy” – “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

i       About a half century ago. Maybe more, but, as the saying goes, “Who's counting?”

ii          Or her.

iii       'Good Behavior' Still Pays Off, September 25, 2013.

iv        And unjustifiable.

v       Some prefer “rear,” but that's the cliché.

vi      After it pays for expenses and corruption, of course.

vii    Another name for this approach is “socialism.” The basic idea is a redistribution of wealth so everyone has the same amount. It is irrelevant why someone is rich and another is poor. Both deserve the same amount of resources. Take from the “rich” and give to the “poor.” We are all our brothers' (and sisters') keepers.

viii    By the way, who decides where to draw the line?

ix      And, for that matter, anyone in our territory – citizens or not. But at this time I won't pursue the issue of those here illegally.

x      There is no consciousness of the fact that those same individuals (all of us) underwrite it. When it's viewed simply as a government program, we ignore the bottom line that it comes from the taxes we pay. And it is the politicians, who aren't paying for it but are out for votes, who decide what is a problem requiring societal correction.

xi     Or she.